India was once ruled by a party called 'the Indian National Congress'. Why did it have this name? It was because its members believed India was a Nation. It was admitted to the League of Nations in 1919 and the preamble to the Constitution it adopted made clear that the people of India were constituting themselves into a Republic such that the unity and integrity of the Nation was assured. Thus, with the lapsing of the paramountcy of the Crown, India that is Bharat affirmed itself to be a unified Nation which chose to give itself a Republican form of Government.
By contrast, the US had Republics- like the Republic of Texas- which joined the United States of America. This meant there is 'dual sovereignty' in America but not in India. It is a separate matter that, for administrative purposes, Indian has a Union (not Federal) Government as well as State and Union Territory and Municipal and even Gram Panchayat administrations.
Jawaharlal Nehru was one of the most important leaders of the Congress Party. He wrote a great deal seeking to discover and enunciate in Western terms what principle was encoded in the lived reality of the Indian nation he had gained knowledge of through his participation in the Freedom Struggle. For him, this principle was associated with Hinduism which, being an atheist, he saw as cultural rather than religious. Furthermore, he admitted that he and his father- like many Kayastha, Kaul, and Khattri men- had a Persianate culture under the English varnish. What he didn't say was that all such men were wedded to deeply religious women- like his own wife Kamala who spoke Hindi not English and who decided to become celibate after converting to the doctrine of the Ramakrishna Mission. Her daughter, Indira, was also religious- wearing rudraksha beads and visiting Swamys and Shanaracharyas.
That was many years ago when the Indian National Congress was a Nationalist party. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Recently a member of this party, Rahul Gandhi, said in Parliament
“India is described in the Constitution as a union of states and not as a nation.
If Rahul is right then his great grandfather, on becoming Premier, betrayed the Indian National Congress by allowing a Constitution to be promulgated which said India was not a nation at all. The Brits were right all along. It was just a big piece of territory which they had united for administrative purposes.
Sadly, Rahul is never right about anything. In this particular case, it is easy to show he is completely wrong. India had been admitted to the League of Nations because the whole world recognized that there was a distinct Indian Nation.
The Constitution says that the people of India- who comprise the Indian Nation- were giving themselves this Constitution. But this means the power flowed from the people of the Nation to the Constituent Assembly. Today the Legislature may stipulate the Nation will be a 'union of states'. Tomorrow it could change its mind and decide it should be something else. What mattered was the will of the people who comprised the Nation.
Unlike America, India has no concept of 'dual sovereignty'- the Princely States that acceded to the Union retained no 'vestige of sovereignty' as a 2016 Supreme Court Judgment has it. As a matter of facts, several States have been reconfigured or downgraded to Union Territory status by decisions of the Central Parliament.
One cannot rule over the people of a state in India.
Congress can't rule over shit. That has become clear. Why? Because Rahul is a cretin. He will foster factionalism. The C.M will be fighting with the State Party chief. Then the entire party will be swept away at the Polls.
Different languages and cultures cannot be suppressed.
Nor can they be propped up artificially.
It is a partnership, not a kingdom,”
Unlike the wholly dynastic Congress Party.
“There are two competing visions of India.
No. There are millions of such visions. The one thing everybody agrees on is that Rahul's Raj would be a fucking nightmare.
One, of a Union of States, where decisions are taken through conversation and negotiation
No. The Constitution reserves some decisions for the Center and some for the states and some are 'concurrent'. However, to get these decisions through the Central and the State legislation there has to be conversation and negotiation with those who get elected. Where Congress can't get elected it isn't part of the conversation.
Rahul has lost his seat in Uttar Pradesh. He now represents people in Kerala whose language he does not speak. Will he get re-elected from there? It is doubtful. Thus he won't be part of any conversation or negotiation. That's a good thing. Why? Because he is as stupid as shit.
– a partnership of equals.
No. The party which gets a majority of seats chooses the C.M or P.M. Rahul is not the equal of Modi. Modi would be a fool to listen to this stupid fellow.
Another, of rule by a Shahenshah’s diktat.
Says a dynast whose Granny jailed her opponents and promoted her son.
This hasn’t worked in 3,000 years.
Clearly this guy hasn't heard of the British Raj or the Mughal Empire or that of the Guptas or Mauryas.
BJP’s flawed vision has weakened our nation,”
But this guy just said there was no nation to be weakened in the first place!
On the other hand, the question may well be asked why, if India is just an arbitrary collection of States put together by the Brits, Sri Lanka and Burma and Pakistan were excluded from it? Is India like Nigeria which was created so that the wealthy South could pay for the administration of the mainly Islamic North? Or is it a Hindu nation with some non-Hindu majority areas where some secessionist sentiment exists to some degree or other?
The answer, I think, is that India is a Nation because Hindus want 'Hindutva'- i.e. an ecumenical type of Religion which brings together people of different castes and regions. Furthermore, there are different sects within Hinduism who used to express some hostility to each other. The Indian Freedom Struggle and post-Independence Nation Building has enabled Hinduism to reform itself. In particular, hereditary entitlement- like that of Rahul- and rigid caste barriers have been gradually diluted and eroded. Modi and Kovid represent 'Bharat', not the India of the elites. But to get re-elected all Indian politicians, no matter who their Mummy or Daddy was, have to concentrate on 'deliverables'. Look at Naveen Patnaik. He is a blue-blood who could be a Professor of English Literature at Oxford or Harvard. Yet he has ruled Orrisa for 23 years. It said that he still can't speak the high literary language of his people. This may not be true because he is a very scholarly man. Still, the fact is, he has concentrated on 'deliverables' and good governance. Congress once contained many people of his caliber. Indeed, it still has people like Gehlot. The problem is that Rahul is an utter cretin. Let him retire from Politics. Then perhaps Congress's fortunes will revive. It will stop going down an anti-national path in the belief that India isn't a Nation. Hinduism isn't the glue which holds the country together. Instead India is merely a Union of States each of which could itself be broken up. Nothing involving endless 'conversation' and 'negotiation' can keep things together. Yet what India learned from the 'Round Table Conferences' of the early Thirties is that the more people talk, the more they realize they must walk away from each other.
S.N Sahu, formerly Press Secretary to President Narayannan, writes in the Wire-
In 1941, Gandhi authored the text “Constructive Programme” containing several points such as communal unity, economic equality, equality of women, removal of untouchability and improving the livelihood of farmers.
Was this a constructive thing to do? No. He was just recycling bullshit. Does anybody now believe that if you spend a couple of hours every day spinning cotton, poverty and hunger will diminish? No. But the spinning wheel was at the heart of Gandhi's 'constructive program'. Congress members, to this day, are required to spin cotton and wear khaddar.
Gandhi said that poor people would stop being idle when they heard you were spinning cotton. Thus, the real reason people were starving was because they were lazy. That's why Gandhi condemned those who wasted their money on feeding the poor or donating clothes to them. It would be far better if they gave that money to Gandhi so that he could subsidize his own crack-pot schemes.
He stated that if the Constructive Programme is implemented and the activities prescribed therein are carried out, India could achieve independence non-violently.
Gandhi was wrong. It was the Second World war- in particular the Japanese invasion of South East Asia- which pulled the plug on European colonialism in that part of the world.
While expounding the issues concerning Adivasis sensitively, he observed, “Our country is so vast and the races so varied that the best of us cannot know all there is to know of men and their condition.” He added, “As one discovers this for oneself, one realizes how difficult it is to make good our claim to be one nation, unless every unit has a living consciousness of being one with every other.”
This was certainly true of Gandhi. At the Second Round Table Conference he single handedly united all the 'minorities' against him. Even the non-Brahmin Madrasis and the Sikhs and the Dalits turned their backs on the INC. Thus it was the Brits who dictated the scope and pace of the transfer of power. Thankfully, a patriot of great, almost Gandhian, stupidity shot that nutcase. Ambedkar wrote to his wife that this was a blessing in disguise. Congress certainly profited by it- just as it profited by Indira getting shot and Rajiv getting blown up. Rahul doesn't want to be the next Gandhi to help the Congress party by getting assassinated. That's why he is perfectly happy to render it unelectable. Not till it can't command a single vote anywhere in India will he retire from politics.
Would those who commented harshly on Rahul Gandhi’s observation on the Indian nation have assailed Gandhi for taking a stand that it would be difficult to prove the claim that India is a nation?
No. But they'd secretly cheer if some nutter shot that crackpot.
At a time when the vilification campaign against Gandhi has been relentlessly taken forward by several Hindutva and BJP leaders and the ruling leadership of India remains deafeningly silent, they would have found Gandhi’s account of the Indian nation reprehensible.
In 1939, Gandhi said the INC was a high caste Hindu party. If the Brits left, then the Punjabis and Gurkhas would ally with the Muslims to take over the country. Ahimsa magic would prevent them from sodomizing the high Caste Hindus who might also protect the low castes by this supernatural method. This is the reason Gandhi demanded that the Brits hand over the Army to Congress. If they didn't do so the Muslims (and Punjabis) would grab all the nice shiny things. Ahimsa magic would protect High Caste anal cherries but that's about all it could do.
No wonder that those with an incomplete understanding of the history of the Indian freedom struggle found Rahul Gandhi’s statement “deeply problematic”.
If India is not a Nation, why should it not simply hand over territory to anyone who wants it? Why should there not be a Khalistan and Dravidistan and so forth?
The BJP leaders who made scurrilous remarks against Rahul Gandhi would also do well to know Ambedkar’s views.
Which were that Gandhi was a shithead determined to fuck up Dalits.
Like Gandhi, he was very cautious in explaining that India could not be described as a nation and the sooner people realised it, they would strive to make it a nation by taking concerted measures.
Ambedkar thought his people could get more from the Brits and maybe also the Muslims. He and J.N Mandal were wrong. They faded out of politics in the Fifties. On the other hand Dalit politicians- like Jagjivan Ram- turned out to be better than the Gandhian or Socialist or Morarji type nutjobs. That's why India still has reserved seats. Dalits are smart and patriotic. They are less inclined to talk bollocks.
In fact, Ambedkar while delivering his last speech in the Constituent Assembly, recollected the history of the US and informed that there were serious differences of opinion among Americans of that time to describe it as a nation.
America didn't give full citizenship to native and African Americans. Moreover America had a Civil War in which it lost more men than in all the Wars it has subsequently fought.
He added that during the formative stage of the US, when the phrase, “O’ Lord, bless our nation” was adopted, the next day, many protested and it was altered to say “O’ Lord, bless these United States.” Ambedkar explained that “objections were raised by the laity to the word ‘nation’ as importing too definite a recognition of national unity”.
This is wholly irrelevant. White peeps aint indigenous to America. Hindus are wholly indigenous to India though they may have had to flee their ancestral homes because Muslims have taken power there.
Then he asked with poignancy, “If the people of the United States could not feel that they were a nation, how difficult it is for Indians to think that they are a nation.”
But, if they joined the RSS, this difficulty was easily overcome.
He continued by saying, “I remember the days when politically minded Indians resented the expression ‘the people of India’. They preferred the expression ‘the Indian nation’.”
However, he cautioned and stated, “The sooner we realise that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us.”
Ambedkar was soon to realize that voters didn't like him. He couldn't get elected on an unrestricted franchise. The Republican Party of India turned out to be a factionalized damp squib. Still, he converted to Buddhism- which spread untouchability to Japan- and became a Boddhisattva thus going one up on Gandhi- a mere Mahatma. Then Mayawati built big temples for him thus turning him into a Hindu god.
“For then only,” he said, “we shall realize the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realising the goal”.
Such reflections of Ambedkar closely correspond to Gandhi’s statement.
But don't correspond in any way to the truth- at least for Hindus. Still, once you are chased out of your ancestral home by Muslims or Christians you may suddenly discover that the only place willing to take you in is the nation where Hindus are the vast majority. Still, if you can get a visa to Yurrop of Amrika, that would be better still.
Exercising caution, Ambedkar had observed that the realisation of the goal to make India a nation “…is going to be very difficult – far more difficult than it has been in the United States. The United States has no caste problem.
It had a race problem.
In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national.”
Casteism is anti-national. Hindutva is anti-caste. Socialism turned out to be a wank.
Explaining further the difficulties posed by castes to make India a nation he said, “In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste.” Asserting that “we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality,” he proclaimed “fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint”.
Ambedkar, like other politicians, talked bollocks. His audience knew that the French had castes but came together as a Nation to kill the King and lots of noblemen and Bishops and so forth. But 'fraternity, equality and liberty' didn't matter at all. Winning wars did. A Nationalism which isn't about winning wars will soon get fucked in the ass. Ukraine's nationalism is kicking ass. Putin's nationalism is taking it up the ass. Why? Because it turns out that the Russian Army has quietly turned to shit on his watch. He has some cool tech, but the fact is Russian soldiers aren't getting proper rations. An army marches on its stomach.
Elsewhere, he wrote, “Nationality is a social feeling. It is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin.
Fuck off! Religion may have that quality. Taking ecstasy at a rave may produce that feeling. Nationality is a political feeling. If your nation can't kick ass you should emigrate while it is safe to do so. Don't wait till the invaders' tanks are at your door.
This national feeling is double edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of fellowship of ones own kith and kin and an anti-fellowship feeling for those who are not one’s own kith and kin.
Fuck kith and kin. We just need to be able to kill and torture invaders or criminals who try to grab our stuff. It doesn't matter if the fellow is your cousin. You want him to have a nice bullet-hole in his skull if the guy is trying to steal your land.
It is a feeling of consciousness of kind; which on the one hand binds together those who have it so strongly that it overrides all difference arising out of economic conflicts or social gradations and, on the other, severs them from those who are not of their kind. It is a longing not to belong to any other group. This is the essence of what is called a nationality and national feeling.”
This simply isn't true. If it were, no country should permit the immigration of people of a different stock. Yet, experience shows, those immigrants are more, not less, willing to fight for their new nation precisely because they know that not doing so will turn the place into a worse shithole than the one they fled.
Ambedkar’s thoughts on India and nationhood would have made him a target of attacks by BJP leaders
No. Ambedkar was respected because he was hella smart. But his political instincts were poor. The same can be said of Pakistan's first Law Minister- Ambedkar's pal, J.N Mandal. But Mandal had to flee to India because he was Hindu. Ambedkar and his family didn't have to flee India because Hindus regard Buddhism as a Hindu sect.
who are not sparing Rahul Gandhi for explaining the idea of the Indian nation almost in the same manner as Ambedkar did in the Constituent Assembly. It is, therefore, important to understand the thoughts of Gandhi and Ambedkar to sharpen the idea of the Indian nation, which is being continuously shaped within the framework of a ‘Union of States’ as enshrined in the constitution.
The idea of the Indian nation has been reshaped by the triumph of Hindutva. Treating Hindus as 'anti-national' and pretending 'Hindu terrorism' is a grave threat to the country is a certain way to lose political power or, indeed, relevance. Look at Digvijay Singh. The Hindu nun he framed was elected by a thumping majority in his own seat.
If Rahul loses his seat in Kerala, will the Muslims in Kashmir accommodate him? No. Don't be silly. Their attitude to Hindu Pandits is well known and Rahul now claims to be a janeodhari Brahmin. Perhaps he quite genuinely is. There were some stupid Brahmins who bought into the bogus 'Aryan' theory. History has kicked them in the pants. But, where the majority is Hindu, their lives have been spared. Their kids soon repent the arrogance of their ancestors and embrace Hindutva though in some States they may not want to acknowledge that this is the case. But even that is changing. India is a nation the vast majority of whose people consider themselves Indians first, last, and forever. We can't be sure our kids may not settle in a different state. We can be sure that sooner or later they will be marrying out of caste and region. Thus the abiding identity of our 'oikos' will be Indian though no doubt we may take pride in our ancestral link with some particular place.
No comments:
Post a Comment